Assassin’s Creed III Is A Massive Letdown

The title gives my game away of where I’m going with this, but before I get into it, I’d like to say a few things. I have always been a huge fan of the original Assassin’s Creed and Assassin’s Creed II, and I could put many good words in for Brotherhood as well, but it’s well known that I despise Revelations. However, despite this, I was excited to play Assassin’s Creed III, and I ended up buying it on launch day, deciding to go into it with an open mind and not let my annoyance after the last game get in the way. This was going to be the conclusion to the story we’ve waited five years to see an end to, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. But after finishing the game, a few sleepless nights and long days after its release, to rip the bandage off quickly I’m honestly seriously disappointed. Assassin’s Creed III is one of the biggest disappointments I’ve had recently, and here’s every reason as to why I feel that way.

Brief intermission here, but back in February 2012 I wrote a column on the current state of the Assassin’s Creed series, and what I felt Assassin’s Creed III needed to do in order to return to excellence. Unfortunately, it’s a sad reality that most of the critical points I discussed regarding Assassin’s Creed III ended up not being addressed, and that contributed to my disappointment.

You’ve also most definitely given AG’s review of the game a read, and I feel it’s an honest take from someone with an enormous amount of love for the series, and it’s a great review overall. But being a review, there are many things it can’t touch on that I hope to do in this write-up.

Right then, let’s get into it. But first, here’s something happy.

Firstly, we all know Assassin’s Creed likes to stall. It likes to drag things out, it likes a slow pace in the beginning and you know that’s usually alright. I mean, Assassin’s Creed II took three or four hours to get going, but once it did it rewarded you for the wait and was an outstanding game. But this is the final chapter in the story. You’d expect them to pull out all the stops, to get right into it and give you an exciting, pulse-pounding game full of twists and revelations and epic moments, or at least something awesome every hour. The ultimate reward for reaching the final chapter, the feeling that all four games before led to this. But Assassin’s Creed III does none of that. It’s simply shocking. It treats you as if you’re simply playing another Assassin’s Creed game, or for a better analogy playing Assassin’s Creed II on retard mode. Literally, for the first six to seven hours of the game you are doing tutorials, and being introduced to the game’s world. Do you know how much that is of the game? Forty percent. By the time you actually don the Assassins outfit and become an Assasssin as Connor, and do your first Desmond mission, you have completed forty percent of the game. Think about that. Take it in.

It is simply unacceptable on any level for the fifth and final game in the series, or any game in hell for that matter, to start off so damn slowly. You literally have to relearn everything you did the last four games. You learn how to move, climb walls and later climb trees, fist fight, sword fight, identify enemies, use Eagle Vision, eavesdrop, hide in plain sight, hunt, gather materials, buy from a shop and so much more. It’s utterly ridiculous. It destroyed my excitement for the game. I just can’t understand it. Do you realise that the time it took just for Assassin’s Creed III to merely start is the same amount of time it actually took me to complete a stealth playthrough of Dishonored? What the hell? Seven hours I could have put into an excellent game, and finished it, was instead spent bored out of my mind. That’s unacceptable. I don’t buy games to be bored, and more importantly, it was insulting to be honest. Did the developers think I was a moron despite having beat four of their games? Do they think any self-respecting gamer is stupid enough to need this much spoon feeding? There is no excuse for that. There is no justification for this level of time wasting. It didn’t help the story, or build up to anything. Yes, I’m angry. Contrary to popular belief, I rarely actually get angry, it seriously takes a lot to make me angry, despite my online rage and ranting, but this game was the limit for me. No game I have ever played is better at killing off its momentum and my excitement and anticipation of what’s to come.

Back in April of this year, I wrote a column on the dangers of tutorials in modern games, and without exaggerating Assassin’s Creed III is simply everything that is wrong with them.

But even then, after around forty percent of the game is done, there are still a few more tutorials and slow paced missions. I remember pulling an all-nighter on the Thursday night after this game came out, chatting to AG and telling him that I knew it would get better, like Assassin’s Creed II did, that at least the tutorials were done now. But no. When I really experienced my first genuinely awesome and memorable mission, I was eight hours into the game. Take a guess what my total playtime for the main campaign was. Thirteen and a half hours. I had limited time due to exams, and I was excited to go through the main story, and that’s why I didn’t spend hours with the side missions. I got told that I missed out on the best parts of the game by not spending hours on the side things, but really, if the side missions are better than the main campaign, especially when this one should be wrapping up the story and be all about the main campaign, then you have a serious problem. That’s not good. Just think about this though. The main story is around thirteen or fourteen hours, but eight of those are spent in tutorials, introductions and non-standout missions. You are literally only getting five hours or less of truly great game time in the main story. The tutorial and introduction section of the game is longer than the main story section. I’m dumbfounded at that. It’s like the game needed to fill the hours, which I can’t understand because some of the later missions are so awesome you wonder why more of this isn’t shown in the rest of the game. It was entirely unnecessary to drag it out to such a painful degree.

And what of the story? Well, the first eight hours of it is all unimportant, slow-paced showing off of how much this series likes its history and delving into the fruits of its research. It’s like a gigantic, never-ending billboard advertising the tourist attractions. There is a great twist in the early hours, and a really interesting and awesome character to play as, but from there it’s all buried uselessly under the tutorials and lack of anything happening. Connor himself is a cool enough character at times, but he seems to have no significance in the grand story. Ezio and Altair were great movers in history, and their fates intertwined with Desmond. Both had enormous lessons to teach Desmond and both did things that would directly affect him and the current war between the Assassins and Templars years into the future. Even the two of them were strongly connected, as Ezio effectively studied Altair’s entire life and learned a great many things from him, even discovering his place of rest in Revelations, and as a result deciding to hang up his hoodie and retire. Ezio even meets Minerva and becomes a conduit to deliver a message to Desmond, and leads him to the Apple. But Connor has no such relevance whatsoever. Furthermore, he does not grow and become wise like Altair and Ezio did, and neither does he learn the Creed and what it means to become a true Assassin. It seemed the obvious story path especially because of his personal encounters with Templars, but he mostly stays one-dimensional.

He doesn’t connect to Altair, Ezio or even Desmond. He is simply a vessel to lead Desmond to something they need, which then begs the question: why on earth does the entire game’s story revolve around him? When you step into Desmond’s shoes, it’s exciting to explore the modern world, and get to be the Assassin you’ve waited five years to be, even if you dislike Desmond as a character himself. But there are barely any of these sections in the game, maybe three or four at most, and they all come with the same purpose. They’re glorified fetch quests in a way. Yet, I will admit that despite hating Desmond’s non-existent character, he did start to become interesting in Assassin’s Creed III, and his sections were sure highlights of the game, yet they just didn’t feature. Connor hogs the entire game, which would have been fine if he had similar relevance to that of Altair or Ezio, but he just doesn’t.

Not only does it take eight hours for the story to get going, but it is never deeply explored and doesn’t make the impact that the original two games did. It baffles me how games can waste so much time building things up or babbling on about insignificant things, but when it comes to the most important parts of the story they hastily try to skip past it or wrap everything up without giving it proper attention and impact. And again, what’s so surprising about Assassin’s Creed III is that it has excellence in many places regarding the story. The dialogue is top notch, the voice acting is great, the intro section with Haytham is amazing, Connor’s section where he later teams up with another character is yet another example of greatness as the two share an intriguing dynamic, and finally the Templars are really explored in a unique way quite a few times in this game, making you question all that you’ve known about them thus far. Yet, strangely it never amounts to anything. Especially at the ending, and throughout most of the game, it’s like the Assassins against Templars isn’t even important anymore.

The entire game is about getting a key you need to use to open some mystical door. The entire game is, essentially, a build up, which is baffling as we’ve had four games to do just that. But, despite the end of the world approaching fast, neither the game nor its characters give you any indication whatsoever that disaster is imminent, or that time is little. You stroll through it all at such a slow pace with such little urgency that it’s painful, and any impact of what’s to come is greatly reduced.

And the ending is atrocious, more because of how it was handled than due to what actually happened.

I don’t care about a happy ending, I seriously don’t mind if there isn’t one. I said this already at the time of Mass Effect 3. All I care about is closure most of all, and a proper send off to the game and its characters and something that makes sense and is written well. Assassin’s Creed III hastily wraps things up, despite the severity of what’s happening, and pays little attention to the emotional aspect of the decisions the characters are making. If I’m not mistaken also, the series greatly contradicts itself in a way that’s shocking. Minerva and Juno show you what the Assassins’ choice of freedom leads to in the world, if the solar flare is allowed to happen. That it would be a life of struggle, and the world would be led to ruin. Juno wants to control people for peace. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Oh right, that’s because it’s the Templar’s way of achieving peace. Juno is of Templar ideals! Or to be chronologically correct, the Templars are of Juno ideals. Yet, Desmond chooses her way in haste, deciding that Minerva’s path will be too painful and hopeless, and he goes against the Assassin order.

Now, this could have even been quite a twist ending, a seriously great one actually, and it is a really good concept, but the problem is that so little attention is given to it. It’s over so quickly. The game doesn’t even acknowledge that Desmond is following the Templars. The characters don’t even bring this to his attention. They don’t bother about it and spend an emotional moment realising that the Templars may not be so wrong after all. They don’t even all talk it out. They simply stand in silence. Rebecca, Desmond’s father and Sean Hays. It’s over in barely ten minutes. The game gives you some answers to its mysteries, but when the credits rolled I was honestly left with a feeling of “what the potato was that?” rather than satisfied. It all seemed so abrupt, so forced into a conclusion as if the creators of the game themselves weren’t too fond of the ending, and didn’t know how to wrap it all up.

It feels like Mass Effect 3 again, in terms of the “push button to save world” idea and abruptness of the ending, except only worse in execution because you don’t care for or particularly like the character making the sacrifice. Desmond stops the solar flare, and gives up his life for it in a very Mass Effect 3 type way, but in case you didn’t realise, the Templars are still at large and it looks like he has just released the grand mother of all Templars onto the world. If you want to go for a heroes don’t win, tragically imperfect ending, then pay it the emotional respect it deserves. I would have been happy if they at least acknowledged just what the hell Desmond was doing, discussed what would happen afterward, made it more human and took time to let it sink and if he had defended his choice with something more meaningful than “it’s the only way”. Something. Anything. I mean, Desmond and his father don’t even share an emotional goodbye despite reconciling their relationship after years. There’s nothing, it just wraps and leaves you with a rather bitter and angered feeling. If a game can devote seven hours to its start, why can’t it give at least more than ten to twenty minutes to its ending?

I can’t understand it. It reminds me of the time Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots released, and many complained of the hour long ending cutscene to the game. Despite being my favourite game series of all time, I will be the first to admit that MGS4 was riddled with long-winded and unnecessary cutscenes, but now I’m starting to wonder if that extremely lengthy ending is the way it should be done for epic series’ such as these, if not to a lesser extreme. It’s surely better than this rushed nonsense, where you get no good send off to the characters, and no real closure. Honestly, the ending didn’t ruin the game for me. It did ruin the story, as did the rest of the game’s absence of it, but I’m not condemning the entire game because of its story. It’s just a sore point on a game with a lot of them, and I expected better after three years of development, and two intermediary sequels.

I’ve gone to great lengths to talk about the story, pacing, abundance of tutorials and time factor, but what of the most important part, which is the gameplay? Similarly to the rest, I feel Assassin’s Creed III is a roller-coaster of emotions in this as well. There are genuinely great improvements to the free running, climbing and combat. The developers did an awesome job of making it all feel fresh again, and it feels a lot more cinematic, brutal and fluid. And that naval combat? It’s a tragedy. It’s so damn amazing they could make an entire game out of that and I’d buy it off the shelf. It’s one of, if not the best parts of the entire game, yet it’s isolated since it doesn’t have anything to do with the story or actually being an assassin. Still, it’s shining with effort, and it’s incredibly good fun, which just made me more agonised because the rest of the game rarely reaches the same level. There are some genuinely great missions after eight hours in, like the famous historical battles for instance, which are exceptional, but the rest are almost entirely forgettable and run of the mill. I can’t even recall any standout assassination missions, which used to be highlights of the series. I just can’t fathom how developers clearly capable of producing such magnificent set pieces and epic scale gameplay sections decided to avoid it all and instead have players engage in the most monotonous of tasks for most of the game.

There are plenty of things to do in the game world, whether it’s classic jacking around, hunting, side missions, taking over enemy forts to reduce enemy presence in an area, gathering materials, acquiring collectibles, delving into the economy system and so on, but for the first time in an Assassin’s Creed game, or rather much like Revelations, I felt quite uninspired to do it. Or perhaps I shouldn’t say uninspired. I should say I was too busy focusing and looking forward to the main story unfolding, and trying to get through the frustrating tutorials, that it never really appealed to me that much. I did as many as I could push myself to do, but they couldn’t hold my interest for long, because there was just no incentive to do any of it really unless you’re a completionist. That economy system seemed overly complicated and frankly utterly pointless, and I single it out because it’s just one example of something that could have been chopped out in favour of far better gameplay elements. After all, it gets you money, which has little use in the game as your starting weapons get the job done and there aren’t that many worth buying. Just because there is tons of variety in what you can do, doesn’t make it all worth doing. Quality over quantity. In previous games, you had seals that could unlock the best armour, missions such as the codex pages in Assassin’s Creed II and Altair’s memory disks in Revelations that enhanced the story, and other extras like the collectible Glyphs. But in Assassin’s Creed III by comparison, the hunting and courier missions and forts are just there for the sake of variety. It’s variety, but it’s not meaningful variety. This game definitely doesn’t know the difference between the two.

Now, there are a lot of really good ideas in this game, but I feel it’s a classic example of just doing too much and not focusing on fleshing out the core experience, which is the main campaign. Many of the side stuff are, as I established, just there. It seemed like the mission statement for this game was add as much as possible rather than focusing on the story and its conclusion, the mission structure and core elements. A comment from our Alessandro in our review of the game put it perfectly, so I’m going to quote it rather than rephrase it. He said, “Sure, they’ve tried to do good things, but at the end of the day if those attempts don’t give way to actual success, then you can’t merit them for anything. If we judged all games but what they were trying to do rather than what they actually achieved, we’d be looking at every single game we’ve ever played in very different ways.” Pretty succinct. Another sore point for me was the mission design and structure, as it was quite rigid for a lot of the game. There always seemed to be one way to complete a mission, bar the bonus objectives, and in these contexts I greatly missed the open-ended assassinations from previous games. I didn’t feel like it was my playing field, as either cutscenes or forced combat and triggers would get in the way of anything else.

Even with its graphics, Assassin’s Creed III gave me mixed reactions. Graphically it’s simply gorgeous and in many ways breathtaking, from its vast and dynamic environments to its weather effects. It’s a sight to behold most of the time, and you could spend a lot of time just taking everything in when you’re in the wilderness or in a war, or just running through the rain or experiencing the changes of season. And don’t get me started on the soundtrack, it’s awesome. But sadly, even after installing the day one patch, I still experienced a wide range of visual bugs, like objects being suspended in mid air, blatant and bad lip syncing issues where sometimes a character’s mouth didn’t even move when they spoke, visual effects from cutscenes that didn’t go away until I reloaded my save, and many glitches such as my sword or tomahawk disappearing from my inventory on about four occasions forcing me to buy a sword again, enemies standing idly not doing anything while I hacked away at them, or just ceasing to attack me altogether, and frequent lag and stuttering issues. Now, what’s curious about this is that my fellow writers had different experiences with the frame rate. AG, myself and Alessandro experienced consistent lag and stuttering issues, while Cavie and Marko reported none. They played on Xbox 360, and the three of us on PS3, so is that the reason? Or is the game just not up to scratch?

Well, spending over two hours reading the Ubisoft forums and browsing the internet about this exact topic had me discover that it’s a widespread issue, on both consoles. The frame rate plummets mostly seem to occur in Boston and New York. As for the glitches, I don’t make a meal out of them usually, as often enough you just see them, laugh or get annoyed, shrug and move on. But where glitches become a real problem comes down to consistency and frequency of them, and unfortunately Assassin’s Creed III had a lot, continuously. It’s going to be interesting when the PC version comes out, as we’ll get to see if this issue is just because the current consoles are being taxed, but either way it’s just not alright.

Honestly, when completing this game I felt so disappointed that I definitely couldn’t agree with most of the plaudits this game is getting. It just feels like all of the effort was put into the wrong places with this game. The things that are superficial or cool to look at and experience, but don’t vastly impact the game or make the experience for you live on to be memorable. Yes, the little things are great, when it comes to the audio and visual experience, but they’re exactly that, little things. Now, I appreciate the little details and efforts and all of that. Often enough, the little things can definitely contribute to something special, and it does here if we’re talking about an excellent and immersive visual experience. But when I look at the entire game itself and the bigger picture, those little things seem quite small.

But here’s the most important part of this entire write-up. Assassin’s Creed III is not a bad game, despite my mountain of criticisms Although I definitely wouldn’t call it a great game either. It has flashes of brilliance, it has its ups and there’s a lot to merit it for, but there’s also tons to fault it for, a lot of which could have been avoided. Just because I find it to be a huge letdown, doesn’t mean I think of it as a terrible game by any stretch. Don’t confuse the two. It’s disappointing because we had two intermediary sequels in Brotherhood and Revelations, and a three year wait, yet this game has so many faults. The game is disappointing because the entirety of Connor’s story is practically irrelevant to what is going on in the grand scheme of things, and is paced so poorly and shockingly slowly that it’s painful. The story is disappointing because the few moments of excellence in it are never explored in greater depth or made a larger part of the story, and the Desmond parts, while highlights as gameplay sections, falter with regards to the story, ultimately leading to a badly written and rushed ending. It’s disappointing because three years of waiting didn’t result in an improvement jump similar to that of the first two games in the series. It’s disappointing for me because it’s just far off from being the best game in the series. And it’s disappointing because of all the misdirected effort that was put into ultimately pointless areas of the game rather than spent on the core experience and the main campaign.

The fundamental problem is that for the first two Assassin’s Creed games, everything good about them was elevated because the series was fresh, ambitious and exciting back then, but after Brotherhood and Revelations, it seemed much more apparent that Assasssin’s Creed III was a “prove yourself to me” game rather than something we had absolute faith in that it would blow us away. Unfortunately, in the end, the hype was too much, and Assassin’s Creed III’s over-ambition was its downfall. It tried to do way too much, a great amount of it unnecessary, and the result was that it was less than the sum of its parts, and that it didn’t do enough in the areas that truly mattered. It’s a damn shame.

Phew, I need new hands after this. I assume you need new eyeballs, if you somehow managed to read it all. Many thanks to all who did. Pat yourself on the back, and rage at me down below.

I needed one after the game :( But now I’m playing NFS: Most Wanted and a few highly entertaining indie games so my need-for-hug meter has diminished back to zero :D

wolftrap01

Candidate for gaming flop of the year?

Michael Matusowsky

I thimk he needs a hug.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Are you going to give me one?

Michael Matusowsky

No homo

http://www.facebook.com/daryl.eksteen Daryl Eksteen

I feel the same about Halo 4…..feels like I’m playing Halo 3 again or Halo 2 again, yet it gets all the praise.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Really? I haven’t played Halo 4 yet, but all the excitement about it and talk of it being an easy GOTY contender is making me very interested in playing it. Why do you say so?

wolftrap01

a friend of mine called it Halo 3.5

http://www.facebook.com/lilrizky Joshua Rizk

I haven’t played AC3, was waiting for Wii U, but i enjoyed Halo 4. I’ve played a lot of MP and the changes work well, i’m only half way into the campaign. not as epic as the first 3, but definitely more dramatic and just as much action.

http://www.facebook.com/daryl.eksteen Daryl Eksteen

I’d rather be playing Far Cry 3! NFS is looking good.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Can’t wait for Far Cry 3 :D One of my most anticipated next to Hitman :D/

GJ Ram

azhar… i just have few words for u.. its good to vent ur anger my friend.. i appreciate it.. now close ur eyes and start praying silently for ASSASSINS CREED IV to get released well… :D

Jeez Azhar! You better calm down with that word count, I actually read that entire aritcle and my eyes are bleeding. I shouldn’t have read this, I should’ve rather just remembered yours and AG’s conversation from the other day.

I still have to get the game from AG and play it. I’m not particularly looking forward to that thanks to you 2 but since I’m far less critical than you mostly hopefully it will be bearable.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Hahaha :D I have to be thorough :P But I’m sure you’ll enjoy it after the first 4-6 hours, probably once you get your Assassin’s outfit. Let me know what you think, I’d be curious :)

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502102028 Kareem Ao

I totally agree with you, the ending was a huge letdown, you don’t even get to know what would connor do next or what contribution does he have in the overall Assassin’s vs Templars story other than finding the damn key. Shame they made it came to this. On a side note, the historical events or shall I say ” missions ” were a bit disappointing as well. Assassin’s Creed 2 is so much better than this.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502102028 Kareem Ao

It’s also short and scripted, so short actually. The only mission that was truly exciting was the fight with his *****. Other than that i don’t know what to say Azhar I’m truly disappointed as much as you are. A series which I very much loved the most through this current generation see it getting an end like this.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

I can’t say I’m glad you agree with me :P But I feel the same, although most of my disappointment isn’t actually because of the ending, but rather with where all the effort unfortunately went, and how lacking the main campaign and empty the story is. Only the historical battles were genuinely great missions, the Desmond sequences (although they hardly had any semblance of story) and the Naval Combat, and they came after seven-eight hours. That hit me the hardest. I actually want to play the first two games again now.

John

Lame ass review! Just in case you didn’t know, they are not making the game for YOU!! And they don’t give two shits about what you thought they needed to improve on, they probably never read your stupid article! I stopped reading about 1/3 of the way through, because it becomes very clear your critique is ALL your own personal opinion not an objective one. What a twat!

sage of the six paths

Thanks for defining what a review is to all of us. :)

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Hey John, you don’t seem to be aware that this IS actually a personal opinion, and not a review. If you go to the home page of this site, you’ll see it clearly labeled as opinion. If you read 1/3 of the way through, as you said, you would also have clearly seen me link our actual review at the beginning of the article, done by another writer.

This is an opinion piece. It’s what I actually and honestly think about the game. There is fact in it, but it’s mostly subjective. So don’t be so quick to jump the gun. If you disagree, great, I’d actually prefer that because it means you enjoyed/are enjoying the game, but don’t slam the article when you don’t even seem to know what it’s about.

sage of the six paths

“No holds barred” is what I think you meant to say.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Haha yeah, sorry typo :P

http://twitter.com/greatwyt Oethman Khan

im still stuck on the lego

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

I want it :D/

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=720787108 Charl Den Dulk

Game is over-ambitious gamers complain, game is under-ambitious gamers still complain. Game tries something new gamers complain about change, game stays the same gamers complain about it being the same. I really feel for the developers because they seem to be catering for a demographic that would never be satisfied with anything they do. I played the first 6 hours of AC3 and it is everything I want and love as a fan of the series, and I really could not have asked for more. And yes it is buggy and it has it’s issues, but when you are breaking new ground and trying new things with a new engine that is too be expected. Just like in real life when doing a project or a role-out of some new software or hardware issue do and will happen that is too be expected.

AC3 has moved the franchise in a new direction, the old fan’s are scared because change scares people. The “new” fans too the franchise is confused because this was not what they expected after playing one or two of the other games Just like the first AC game was new and fresh people also slated it for being buggy and not knowing what direction it wanted too go, but look were the franchise is today. I am pretty excited too see were the next game will take us and see how the developers learned from the mistakes of this games.

Also, the Halo haters should really play Halo 4 they just might find that Halo 4 is the best FPS this generation. Not because it offers something new and fresh. But because it offers a game that has been build on a rock solid foundation and pedigree. I finished it today and there is no doubt in my mind that this is the best Halo game and the best 360 title that MS can offer.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

If gamers couldn’t be satisfied, then these game series’ wouldn’t become so successful and go on to make a franchise. Assassin’s Creed 1 was buggy, in many ways, but I feel it was a great game, and number two improved in almost every conceivable way, in all of the ways that mattered, addressing every single complaint.

Over-ambition itself is really not the issue here Charl. Ambition is good. Perfect examples are Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Batman: Arkham City. Both games had massive ambition and scope. But in my eyes they delivered on all fronts, and the simple reason is because they focused on the core experience. They had their priorities in order. Both games’ side missions/activities were integrated seamlessly into the game, and were developed with a clear purpose and meaning, as is the case with Arkham City’s side missions containing separate stories revolving around iconic villains, and Deus Ex’s branching off into whole new campaigns with multiple dynamics and ways of completing them. Both games’ main campaigns and narratives were focused, paced extremely well, and constantly exciting and progressive.

Doing too much becomes the issue when you’re Assassin’s Creed III, and you’re all over the place. It’s simple really. If you try to do a 100 things in your day, you’ll most likely not give the important things the required effort so quality will suffer. But if you narrow it down and focus on the main and most important parts, you’ll pull it off far better. Surely you can agree that things like the convoy economic system, and the hunting, despite it being interesting, amount to very little. Those are just small examples of where trying to do too much becomes a problem. Other titles like Red Dead Redemption are highly ambitious as well, creating vast and dynamic worlds, but it pays off because the focus is on the core experience and not scrambled across a wide range of things, many of which matter very little and add very little.

The complaint I had was addressed at variety versus meaningful variety. For example, having over 9000 swords is cool, but if only two of them are useful, then that’s not good variety.

Anyway, just clarifying what I meant when speaking about trying to do too much. Glad you loving the game, and I would be excited for this series if they try to reboot it with the next game.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=720787108 Charl Den Dulk

Yeah look you cannot excuse AC3 for trying to much at once. But you also have to consider the sheer scope and size of what the game tries to cover, I studied the American Revolution and the time line it takes place in is absolutely massive in time and scale. No wonder not many developers have the balls to use it as a back drop for their games and I take my hat off too the guys at Ubi Soft for doing so. The sheer amount of details and historical facts and Ideology behind the Revolution they needed to get right is astounding. Not to mention portraying native american way of live and getting the dialect just right.

If you go take a look at the Wiki Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution you can get a good idea of just how massive that part of history was, and I doubt gamers know the amount of effort that went into that. Because we are so used too having worlds and stories made up that everything thing seems to be made up, but this was based on fact not the assassins part but rather the history part. And I can forgive them for stumbling because honestly name another game series that portrays history as accurately as the AC franchise has?

As for Halo 4, it truly is a thing of pure awesomeness I just need to find someone to co-op with me in Heroic because it is way too much for me too handle on my own.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Definitely Charl :) I think I mentioned it in the article, that I appreciated all of the little things and such, but I think my disappointment with the game itself maybe made me neglect to mention that part about the historical accuracy and setting. I agree, the scope of the game is incredible, and the historical tribute is definitely awesome, but I guess that’s also what disappointed me, is that for such a large scope, they should have had a bit more focus on it and using the setting in more engaging ways. I mean, one of the things I absolutely loved about Assassin’s Creed II was Venice in particular, because the waters and tall buildings was a complete change from the other cities, and I absolutely loved the missions that took place in it because careful attention and effort went into the missions designed around that setting.

That’s what I’m getting at. Like I won’t fault the setting itself for AC3, it’s fantastic, but I was disappointed with the missions and campaign they designed around it.

Also, they had enormous history as well, but I think it was a bit of an issue to overlook the central plot completely.

But yeah, thanks for bringing up the setting and historical accuracy, because that’s also a sure highlight of the game and something it deserves a lot of merit and praise for :)

Haha I have access to an Xbox 360 (theft from family), but I don’t know anyone within convenient distance who has Halo 4 :/ I did play it at rAge though, for a little while, and it was quite cool. I haven’t had a chance to play the single player though.

AG_Sonday

I’ll be honest, I skimmed but someone needs a cookie :P

I can understand the rage though because this is one of the few games you’ve bought in a long time and then it turns out like this. I’m not as negatively opinioned as you but I do agree with a lot of what you say. lo’d at most of those pics and I would give Ubisoft a hug if they made a game about the assassin in that last pic. Imagine – augmented assassins :D

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Hahaha :D Remember I wrote everything before the gameplay section the same night I finished the game, so it was in the heat of the moment as well. But yeah, I did go out and buy the game, and we all know the worst feeling in the world is being disappointed with something you bought.

There’s a lot I like and love about it, but disappointment is unfortunately the end result.

Ubisoft need to make potato assassins.

Luke

I agree mostly. For me the side missions are basically non existent, they’re extremely uninteresting. There was no real stealth to the game either, and while they might have added new stealth features, the opportunity for stealth was very limited. However, I found Connor’s story compelling and I’d love to see more. But there were even features promised to us that were never delivered such as, canoes, lakes freezing over in winter, and the great fire of new york mission (there is even footage of it in a trailer but it isn’t in the game?) to name a few. I couldn’t help but think about how much missed opportunity there was in this game, and once the story is completed, there is very little to do in the frontier…

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

I agree about the side missions, I never felt enticed to do them, and when I did they were usually unrewarding and lackluster. I did like the improvements to the stealth, such as by letting you hide in bushes and approach from trees, those deserve a good mention and stay true to the overt stealth theme the original game first introduced. I only found Connor’s story compelling when he got involved with the Templars, but the rest of it pretty much has nothing to do with the main story, and that’s what I found the problem to be :( They introduced a totally new character and made us live through his entire life, but neglected the actual main story.

20glyphs

You completely hit the nail on the head and put this game’s problems into words perfectly. I’ve been saying many of the exact same things myself. AC3 is a good game that has serious flaws and poor design decisions. But because of the quality of the series, and especially AC2, it was a humongous letdown. Just unbelievable how disappointing it was on so many different fronts, from story to gameplay to overall quality.

It’s like they didn’t even understand what people loved about AC2 and just threw away so much and started over. The things they rebuilt weren’t as good as what they were trying to replace, the things they didn’t even bring forward and include from past games were severely missed (like The Truth puzzles and story elements), and a lot of the things they did include from previous games were hollow, more boring versions of their previous selves.

It also feels like a slap in the face to the fans who have been with the series from the start and were discussing the various story clues from past games. So many of those clues were just ignored and thrown out the window. It seems they never really knew where they were taking the story, and were just throwing in lots of mysterious story elements to get people hooked. That is awful storytelling and disrespectful to their fans.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=602797306 Imran Amien

SPOILERS WARNING

Lol just a quick point, I realized you’re quite right about Connor :P. He doesn’t become wise or grow as a person at all. In fact, quite the opposite. He’s just a tool who messes everything up and becomes a miserable failure. He puts the wrong people in power, fails to save his village and ends up killing Charles Lee and his father for selfish reasons. Basically the epilogue is him realizing what a moron he is :P.

Also true, he never comes to understand the Creed. Not like Altair (awesome) or Ezio (bland as he is, he did become quite wise). And notice how he murders 100s of people including his childhood friend but cringes when his father assassinates evil bastards? Consistency much?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502102028 Kareem Ao

lol good point, i felt guilty when i killed his childhood friend but what was so confusing about him was how the kill didn’t matter at all to him as if that’s an enemy not your best friend, he just goes out to kill without a definite reason other than he’s an assassin that should kill any templar. I feel that was a development mistake by ubi they should have made these moments more emotional.

http://www.facebook.com/KingCarloIII Carlo Serafino

I would so want that Lego Connor :D
Plus a game which combines Assassin’s Creed, Deus Ex (and Crysis?)

http://www.facebook.com/nadine.franzsen Nadine Franzsen

Damn there’s a lot of comments but I wont read any of it. I never read a review (well there have been exceptions) ok so I often dont read a review before I play a game I’m looking forward to. The title of the article wont put me off though, I think the game will be enjoyable.

http://www.facebook.com/nadine.franzsen Nadine Franzsen

And I want it so badly I will bloody comment twice on every article. Le sigh.

anon

Sigh. What is it with people and their unfounded belief that Desmond was made to act in the way that the Templars think in the end? His decision has nothing to do with them. It does have everything to do with not rolling over like Minerva wanted him to. What Desmond is doing is gambling that humans would somehow be able to beat Minerva. (Keep in mind that we did it before.) He isn’t going against freedom so much as he is going against a kind of mute surrender to being doomed the exact same stuff happening again.